Monthly Archives: June 2007

George Elliot’s eponymous hero Felix Holt was a man of principle unlike his father. After his father’s death,

Felix was heir to nothing better than a quack medicine; his mother lived up a back street in Treby Magna, and her sitting-room was ornamented with her best tea-tray and several framed testimonials to the virtues of Holt’s Cathartic Lozenges and Holt’s Restorative Elixir.

But Felix would not countenance his mother living on the sales of the quack medicines left to her by her late husband.

I know that the Cathartic Pills are a drastic compound which may be as bad as poison to half the people who swallow them – that the Elixir is an absurd farrago of a dozen incompatible things; and that the Cancer Cure might as well be bottled ditch-water.

Felix was determined to earn an honest living.

I shall keep my mother as well – nay, better – than she has kept herself. She has always been frugal. With my watch and clock cleaning, and teaching one or two little chaps that I’ve got to come to me, I can earn enough. As for me, I can live on bran porridge.

Patrick Holford – true believer.

Ah, bran porridge! Patrick Holford would be proud. He is a great believer in bran. Unfortunately, like Holt’s father, he is also a great believer in pills and elixirs and cures for cancer. In fact Holford thinks he can cure most things including cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alzheimers, arthritis and, of course, autism – hence my interest. And once you are cured he promises to give you beautiful skin and improve your sex life as well!

Patrick Holford – Quack

OK. The guy is a quack. End of story. Unfortunately this quack appears regularly on national TV and is cited as an expert by many national newspapers. As a result his books are bestsellers and he is beginning to gain an international reputation. This makes him a dangerous quack. Fortunately over at Holford Watch a team of bloggers are on his case

Patrick also claims to have miracle multivitamin cures for almost anything. Not feeling mentally acute? Let’s see what his advice is on improving you memory and concentration:

Here are five easy steps you can take now to help keep your mind and memory sharp:
1. Read my book ‘Optimum Nutrition for the Mind’ £12.99
2. Join 100% Health today and you can have this book at a members discounted price.
3. Have a personal nutrition consultation.
4. Attend my 100% Health Weekend Workshop
5. Follow my Brain Friendly Diet and supplement programme.

He can’t be taking his own advice, or he might have considered swapping steps 1 and 2. But maybe it’s not a trend. Maybe he really isn’t all about sucking you dry of every miserable penny. Let’s see what his advice on avoiding cancer is:

Here are five easy steps you can take now to say no to cancer:
1. Read my book ‘Say No to Cancer’ – £6.99
2. Join 100% Health today and this book can be yours for free.
3. Have a personal nutrition consultation.
4. Attend my 100% Health Weekend Workshop
5. Follow my ‘Say No to Cancer’ Diet and supplement programme.

Although less well researched, you may wish to investigate homoeopathic immunisations. In one study 18,000 children were successfully protected against meningitis with a homoeopathic remedy, without a single side-effect.

Inevitably, The Quackometer has revealed that Holford is on the advisory board of Safe Harbor, which is a front organization for the Scientologists. So we can add wackery to quackery.

AIDS, Cancer, Diabetes, Meningitis – these are killer diseases and Holford is giving potentially lethal advice to sufferers who eschew orthodox interventions in favour of his quackery. Compared to this are his dabblings in autism a sideshow that we can safely ignore?

I think not. Autism may not be life threatening but quackery often is. And parents who are aware of his outrageous claims in other areas will be less likely to trust their child’s welfare to somebody like Holford. So I looked at his website (google it if you must. I refuse to link to misinformation) from which all subsequent Holford quotes are taken.

Patrick Holford on Autism.

Autism appears to be occurring more often and while autism used to occur primarily from birth, over the past ten years there has been a dramatic increase in late onset autism, most frequently diagnosed in the second year of life.

Holford is claiming, with no supporting evidence, that regular autism is present from birth but now we have an increase in late onset autism which strikes at 24 months.

Late onset autism does not exist. Part of the diagnostic criteria for autism is that the symptoms are present prior to 36 months. How can there be a late onset variation that appears 12 months earlier? I suspect that Holford is referring to regressive autism, a term used to describes the condition in those children who appear to be developing normally but then regress or fail to meet subsequent developmental milestones. Analysis of family videotapes has shown that this is a real phenomenon. But many of the children who regress into autism show signs of atypical development prior to regression and expert diagnosticians can spot subtle signs, indicative of autism, in these children that parents and non-specialist clinicians often miss.

Holford would like us to believe that regression is caused by factors like the child’s diet, environmental pollution or vaccinations. The fact is that regressive conditions can be genetic. We even know which gene is responsible in Rett Syndrome, a regressive form of autism found almost exclusively in girls.

Patrick Holford on the causes of Autism

As with many conditions there is debate as to whether autism is inherited or caused by something like diet or environment.

Actually there is no debate. The consensus is that autism is genetic. Lots of factors affect gene expression, including other genes. Environmental factors that begin in the womb and continue after birth also play a part. What we have is a complex interaction of the organism and its environment that defies simple either or explanations. Holford is trying to revive the old genes versus enviroment dichotomy which no self respecting biologist would countenance today.

Parents and siblings of autistic children are far more likely to suffer from milk or gluten allergy, have digestive disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, high cholesterol, night blindness, light sensitivity, thyroid problems and cancer. Being breastfed also increases the risk.

This is nonsense, and badly written to boot. Does the final sentence refer to risk of disorders in parents and siblings or the risk of autism? Whatever happened to “Breast is Best”?

At first glance, once might suspect that autistic children may inherit certain imbalances. However an alternative explanation might be that other family members eat the same food and may be lacking the same nutrients and there is growing evidence that some of the nutritional approaches used to help correct dyslexia, dyspraxia and ADHD can make a significant difference to the autistic child.

None of this is supported by the data. It is anecdotal. But there are also many anecdotes from parents about the unusual eating habits of their children. In other words, they do not eat the same food.

Recently there has been a raging debate over the danger of the MMR vaccine causing autism in children. The official line is that there’s no good evidence of such a danger.

The debate is over. Wakefield was wrong. He thought he had found measles in the gut but it was in fact human DNA not measles RNA. The exchange reported by Autism Diva at the autism omnibus proceedings suggests that he published his results knowing that there was good reason to doubt them. Wakefield ignored the doubts. Real science is built on doubt and it is real science, not the official line that has debunked Wakefield.

Patrick Holford – How to Improve the Symptoms of Autism.

Ensure that any nutrient deficiencies are addressed–Research has shown that addressing nutrient deficiencies can dramatically improve symptoms in Autistic children.

Holford is not talking about healthy eating here. There is a lucrative market in selling vitamins, mineral supplements and essential fatty acids. Holford is part of this scam.

Remove Allergens – In addition to nutrient deficiencies, the most significant contributing factor in autism appears to be undesirable foods and chemicals that often reach the brain via the bloodstream because of faulty digestion and absorption.

Actually the scientists who subscribe to this theory regard it as evidence of food intolerance, not an allergy. Allergic reactions are immediate and can range from hives to anaphylactic shock. The effects of food intolerance build up over time. Evidence for food intolerances causing autism is weak and hotly contested. But, even if his sources are mistaken, Holford could at least do them the service of reading them properly and making sure he understands them before rushing into print!

The strongest direct evidence of foods linked to autism involves wheat and dairy and the specific proteins they contain – namely gluten and casein. These are difficult to digest and can result in allergy especially if introduced too early in life.

Once more, it is intolerance not allergy. Words matter. Accuracy matters, especially in medical matters. I am reminded of the old joke.

A man walks into the doctor’s surgery and says, “I want to be castrated.” The doctor tries to dissuade him but finally agrees to do it. After the operation the doctor does his rounds and says to the man, “I am still baffled by your request. It was most unusual. Men normally come to me to be circumcised.” “Oh,” the man replies, “That was the word I was looking for!”

New Scientist has published an interesting commentary on the Autism Omnibus proceedings that are taking place in the United States Court of Federal Claims. They are quite rightly sympathetic to the Cedillo family whose case is the first of around 4,800 that seek to establish whether or not thimerosal containing vaccines, MMR or a combination of the two can cause autism. There is no question that Michelle Cedillo is severely disabled. There is a very big question over whether or not she is the victim of vaccine damage.

New Scientist is less sympathetic to some of those advising the parents and offering expert testimony on their behalf. They have identified a number of problems.

Lawyers representing the parents are acting on the assumption that their claims are statements of fact and that they are only having to go into court because of some kind of conspiracy between the US government and the vaccine manufacturers or ‘big pharma’ in the parlance of the petitioners and their supporters. New Scientist again.

Those findings have not, however, stopped some lawyers from discussing the link as if it were already fact. The firm of Williams, Love, O’Leary, Craine and Powers, based in Portland, Oregon, is representing the Cedillo family. The company website states that “thousands of children” have developed autism “as a result of their exposure” to thimerosal.

One consequence of this mindset is that they are not approaching the court as an independent arbiter of two conflicting claims. Rather, they see the court as another obstacle in their fight for justice. Autism Diva has blogged about a very perceptive discussion of the trial on National Public Radio. One of the contributers, Gardiner Harris, a reporter with the New York Times observed that:

It’s a little bizarre that way, because the lawyers for the claimants — so normally when you go into a court where a judge is making the decision …. there’s a podium right in front of the judges and the lawyers stand in front of the judges… in this case the claimants’ attorney turned the podium around and spoke to the audience instead of to the special masters who will actually make the decision and I think it tells a lot about this case.It’s not clear that it’s all about money or even about winning for the claimants. I think … they are talking to a different audience.

I think that Harris is onto something. Some of those who believe that these autistic children are vaccine damaged have convinced themselves that government, the courts and the scientific establishment are all in cahoots with the drug companies. The children are victims of an enormous conspiracy. They do not expect to win. And if their ‘experts’ are shown up for fools or charlatans, their humiliation will be seen as martyrdom and may even enhance their status amongst those parents for whom the vaccine question has become an article of faith.

It is easy to imagine how well meaning others can be so impressed by the parents’ sincerity that they are swept up by an emotional tsunami that destroys their critical faculties. It is also the case that more cynical observers are quick to step into the wreckage to exploit the suffering with snake oil remedies and dubious research.

The New Scientist cites the Geiers as a case in point. Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the exploits of this family firm and the stirling efforts made by Kathleen Seidel to investigate and expose their dubious activities. It looks like the New Scientist reads her blog as well. It cites her by name. So now its readers know about their phoney IRB that they use to give ethical cover to experimenting on children with Lupron.

And here’s a novelty. When my son was recruited to a research programme into autism at University College in London it did not cost us a penny. They paid all our expenses. Parents who want to enrol their children for the Geier’s research have to pay! Thanks to the New Scientist for this.

He [Geier] adds that he charges parents $500 for an initial consultation, but does not invoice them after that and so makes “virtually nothing” from his work with the families.

So let’s get this straight. The parents pay him $500. They or their insurance companies pay for all the necessary blood tests, lab work and the highly expensive lupron injections. They even administer the drugs themselves. One parent has reported sitting on his daughter to restrain her while injecting her with the drug. Geier works from his home in Maryland, a well appointed dwelling with a pool and a tennis court and a home made laboratory. He has no academic affiliation, though his son and co-author did lie about his affiliation on one of their papers. George Washington University cried, ‘Foul!’ and the paper was withdrawn and republished in a corrected version. Geier publishes the results of his “research” in obscure journals to bolster his career as an expert witness.

Last time out he did not do so well. According to his biography on Wikipedia:

Dr. Geier’s views have been found to fall outside of the scientific consensus. In a 2006 case[12] regarding an immunoglobulin containing thimerosal which was alleged to have caused autism, Dr. Geier’s testimony was found to fall below the Daubert standard, which essentially requires expert testimony on science to be scientifically sound and represent the general consensus. As Dr. Geier provided most of the plaintiffs’ evidence, the case was thus subject to summary judgment.

Amongst the criticisms in the judge’s decisions,[13] Dr. Geier’s literature review was found to be insufficient in justifying his claims, his lack of qualification in pediatrics was highlighted and he was found to be a “professional witness in areas for which he has no training, expertise, and experience,” whose testimony was “intellectually dishonest,” “nothing more than an egregious example of blatant, result-oriented testimony.”

The Omnibus hearings are taking place in a federal court. I only hope that, when Geier takes the stand and testifies to his research methods, his disregard for his research subjects’ [children] right to protection and his encouragment of insurance fraud will bring the Feds down on him like a ton of bricks and he can enjoy his martyrdom for the cause from behind bars.

New Scientist also mentions Robert Nataf, a French chemist.

One potential check for mercury involves a urine test for porphyrins, molecules that occur naturally in the body and bind to metals. Interest in the test accelerated last year following the publication of a paper claiming that autistic children had higher porphyrin levels than normal (Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, vol 214, p 99).

While the researchers state in the paper that they have no conflicts of interest, lead author Robert Nataf is the founder of Laboratoire Auguste Philippe, a Paris-based clinic that sells porphyrin tests. When discussing his research with parents Nataf has also stated that he has a paper “in press” at The Lancet Neurology. Editors at the journal say they have no record of a paper by him. When asked to comment, Nataf did not clarify the situation.

If they had asked me I could have clarified the situation. It is one and the same paper. Last year New Scientist published a story about this paper. They interviewed another of the authors, Richard Lathe. I wrote to New Scientist pointing out that Nataf was telling parents that the research was going to be published by the Lancet and asked for clarification. Instead of clarifying the situation they suggested I contacted Lathe and clarify it for myself. I did and Lathe told me that Nataf had been premature. He omitted to say that the paper had been submitted to Lancet Neurology and rejected. So they had hawked it around until they found a journal with low enough standards to publish it.

Another of the authors of this paper was Lorene Amet. Amet has an autistic son. She has explored a number of therapies for him the including the Son-Rise method and ABA. Eventually she became a DAN! practitioner and set up a clinic in Edinburgh selling biomedical treatments, including chelation, to parents who can buy their porphyrin tests off her fellow researcher, Robert Nataf.

New Scientist concludes:

While Nataf’s failure to disclose his commercial interests may have breached normal publication ethics, it is likely to mean little to the parents of autistic children. Email groups dedicated to discussing the condition are full of pleas for help from parents frightened by a disease that shuts off their children from the rest of the world. Under such circumstances, says Israel parents are desperate for a cure: “If you had autistic children, would you wait for published trials, or would you treat them?

Alan Israel is one of those who profits from the parents. According to New Scientist he owns a pharmacy that sells the chelating agent DMSA to parents, a snip at a $100 for a month’s supply, and ‘treatment’ can last for years. He relies upon parents fear of “a disease that shuts off their children from the rest of the world.”

Autism is neither a disease nor does it shut children off from the world. New Scientist has made a good stab at the autism vaccine controversy. But the erroneous characterization of autism with which the article concludes is exactly the sort of thing that encourages desperate parents to seek desperate measures.

This week’s New Scientist contains the first major discussion of the Autism Omnibus Proceedings that I have seen in the UK media. There are a few minor inaccuracies. For example the Omnibus is not just about thimerosal. There are three theories of general causation proposed by the Petitioners Steering Committee: thimerosal; MMR; thimerosal and MMR combined. And the case of Michelle Cedillo with which the proceeedings have opened is based on the final hypothesis, that thimerosal containing vaccines administered in the first year of life damaged her immune system to such an extent that the MMR caused her to become autistic.

Leaving aside the particulars of individual cases the New Scientist makes some important points. After outlining the preponderance of scientific opinion against thimerosal as a causative factor in autism the New Scientist editorial goes on to say,

On the surface then, this looks like a battle between the reasoned arguments of experts and irrational parents. This is how health officials have interpreted vaccine disputes in the past, but in so doing they alienated the people they are meant to be advising.

In the UK, a similar debate kicked off in 1998, when scientist and doctor Andrew Wakefield cast doubt on the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The response of the medical establishment was well intentioned but disastrous. Experts met behind closed doors and emerged to tell the public the vaccine was safe. Leaflets gave celebrity endorsements of MMR. Rather than examine Wakefield’s claims, which were shaky at the time and are now widely discredited, the government merely told parents not to be silly. Not surprisingly, parents did not buy it. Take-up of MMR fell from 92 to 82 per cent, close to the minimum level needed if isolated cases are to be prevented from developing into epidemics.

At the time of the MMR crisis I remember feeling patronized and my intelligence insulted by what seemed like another attempt to replace serious debate with a public relations spin job by the government and their officials. They made me want to believe Wakefield. And for a while I very nearly did.

Let me be clear. I am not denying. that a small number of children do have adverse reactions to vaccines, sometimes with disasterous consequences. But prior to vaccines every child had adverse reactions to the diseases we vaccinate against and many of the outcomes were tragic. I speak as a survivor of measles, mumps and whooping cough. Today’s parents may be forgiven for failing to appreciate just how serious these diseases can be. The very success of the vaccine programme has led to complacency in this respect.

It has also contributed to the high level of risk aversion in the affluent societies of the world. In my grandparents time it was expected that some children would die. Around 100 years ago infant mortality rates in the USA and the UK were horrendous. One in ten children died before their first birthday. That would put the UK and the USA in the top ten for infant mortality today ahead of countries like Ethiopia and Sudan.

Vaccination rates have contributed to the steady decline in infant mortality. As it happens the current US figure of just under 7 children in a thousand for infant mortality is slighter higher than their rate for autism.

But parents do not consider statistical probabilities when making decisions about their child. When you sit in the doctor’s waiting room with a healthy 18 month old infant in your arms the chances of them dying in infancy are miniscule compared to the chance that they might develop autism. And if there were the tiniest doubt in your mind about the safety of childhood vaccines you would walk out of that waiting room.

In reality most parents have vaccinated their children with overwhelmingly positive outcomes. But for a minority of parents the doubt has been planted post hoc and some of them have thus been led into the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc and blame the vaccines for causing their child’s autism.

The New Scientist suggests that the way to avoid this in the future is for scientists to be

open, and admitting what science does not know. It takes time and effort, but the alternative is that parents and health officials talk past each other.

I can see their point. For a long time science has been presented as the infallible source of truth, not by scientists but by opinion makers in politics and the media. A minority of scientists may have been seduced by this and others have challenged it. But I suspect that most have got on with the job, oblivious to the impact that reports of their work have on public opinion.

However, I am not convinced. Most people’s perceptions of science are not based on what scientists say, but on media reports of what they say. And the standards of science reporting in the popular media are frankly terrible.

This is caused by a mixture of ignorance and laziness that even affects magazines like New Scientist, for whom scientific ignorance should not be an issue. Yet too often they carry short reports based on pilot studies that are not yet ready for public consumption. These are then picked up by the non-scientific media and presented as “proof positive” when no such proof exists.

As an example of laziness, their main article on the Autism Omnibus proceedings contains a reference to mercury as “a known neurotoxin.” Amongst the anti-vaxers this carries the subtext, “They knowingly injected a neurotoxin into our children.” They did it on purpose, dammit!

Is there any circumstance in which New Scientist reporters would describe a substance as an unknown neuro-toxin? The phrase, known neurotoxin, is code for a whole set of assumptions to which New Scientist certainly does not subscribe, but to which it gives unwitting approval by the careless use of language.

Overall, the New Scientist coverage is informed by support for the standards of scientific proof and rigorous criticism for those who fall short of those standards. At the same time it respects the sensibilities of those for whom autism and its causation is not primarily a discussion of scientific principle but a very personal and immediate issue. This discussion has focused primarily upon the issues raised by the New Scientist editorial. I hope to return to the substantive article tomorrow.

After 5 years of delays and legal wrangling the Autism Omnibus proceedings have finally begun. Arthur Allen has blogged about the trial and in one of his posts asks the question, Are they seriously trying to win this case? This is a good question. There are nearly 5000 children involved in the Autism Omnibus proceedings whose parents claim that either

Thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs),

MMR,

or a combination of the two

are responsible for their child’s autism. The omnibus amalgamates all their claims. The special masters presiding over the vaccine court will hear three test cases for each of these three potential causes. As I understand it they will decide whether these individual cases are the result of vaccine damage and award compensation accordingly. They will also decide whether the evidence in these cases supports the general theories of causation presented by expert witnesses for the claimants. If they do it will greatly ease the path of all the remaining claimants for compensation and probably bankrupt the vaccine manufacturers unless they are bailed out by the US government.

So you would expect the family selected to bat first for the claimants to represent their best shot, to be the most straightforward, indisputable case they had. You would also expect the expert witnesses in the case to be fully prepared and briefed for what is in effect a class action suit on behalf of nearly 5000 families.

Sadly, for the Cedillo family who stepped up to the mark for this historic hearing, this seems not to be the case. Left Brain/RightBrain and Autism Diva have written detailed discussions with extensive references to the transcripts of this opening case, which expose the weakness of the case presented by expert witnesses for Michelle Cedillo.

Michelle Cedillo’s is a tragic case. According to Arthur Allen

Michelle is very ill. In addition to her autism she suffers from inflammatory bowel disease, a seizure disorder and chronic eye inflammations that have left her 90 percent blind. She was pushed into the courtroom in a wheelchair because arthritis has left her unsteady on her feet, her mother testified.

But even if she wins, how can such an obviously sick child support a general theory of causation amongst autistic children who are not blind, suffering from IBS, siezures and crippled by arthritis? And it is a big if. The testimony of her expert witnesses is less than convincing. On the balance of evidence presented so far Michelle Cedillo could easily lose her case.

And what then for the family? Their daughter is seriously ill. Someone has persuaded them that her problems are vaccine related and that by pursuing this claim they will obtain the compensation that will guarantee their child’s future. The family have my complete sympathy. I do not blame the parents for believing their lawyers’ arguments and accepting the claims of these so-called experts. But if those lawyers and their expert witnesses are laughed out of court what will happen to the Cedillo family and all the other families relying on their case? Do the anti vax campaigners have their own Anti-Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund to help the families left high and dry in the wake of their failed agenda?

Like many good stories, The Memory Keeper’s Daughter begins on a dark and snowy night. But, unlike most first novels from barely known authors, the book has gone on to be one of the biggest hits in recent American publishing. It has sold more than 3.5 million copies in America and is due for publication in at least 15 other countries. It has done all this despite – or perhaps because – it is about one of the most emotional and difficult situations any new parents might face: a child being born with Down’s syndrome.

According to the Observer

The book has been a huge hit among parents of Down’s children and those who work with them. They have praised its portrayal of a child leading a full life and bringing happiness to a parent.

This is all very positive but I wonder, if the writer had interviewed people with Downs, would they have praised it because it portrayed a child with Downs bringing happiness to a parent? I have always found that the joy of parenthood derives from bringing happiness to my children. Perhaps this is what the writer meant, that parents can rejoice in their children’s happiness.

Apparently many prospective parents of Downs children do not believe that their child will be happy. Over 90 per cent of Downs fetuses that are identified by prenatal screening are aborted. The UK Downs Syndrome Association estimates that 10 in 10,000 live births are Downs. Earlier estimates, before amniocentesis became common, ranged from 15 to 24 in 10,000.

The relevance to autism

With Downs we know exactly where the genetic abnormality lies but have no idea why one of the parents produces a sperm or egg cell with an extra chromosome. We do not understand how this extra chromsome works to produce the features of Downs Syndrome and nearly 50 years after Professor LeJuene discovered the trisomy on chromosome 21 we are still a long way off being able to reverse or ameliorate its effects. All we can do is identify around a half of Downs pregnancies and offer an abortion.

A lot of money is being spent on research into genetic markers for autism. There is not just one, there are dozens of candidate genes for autism and, unlike Downs which is present from conception, there are as yet unknown environmental factors which may contribute to gene expression. Yet every discovery is trumpeted as leading to a possible cure or a genetic test to prevent autistic babies from being born.

This is damaging for a number of reasons.

If a cure is thought to be just a few decades away this will divert funding way from research into ways of improving outcomes for people who are already autistic.

To justify the huge expenditure autism has to be hyped as a health crisis that is devastating lives, when in fact it is lack of understanding and the irrational fears that this sort of hype encourages that are the biggest obstacles for many families.

If autism is so unremittingly awful and the genetic solution is hyped as twenty years down the line parents of newly diagnosed children are going to be vulnerable to the biomedical quackery that is already entrenched among some sections of parents.

Existing autistics will be viewed at best as victims and not as human beings with equal rights to acceptance and ethical treatment.

As public opinion increasingly lines up behind scientific opinion on the unfeasibility of the autism vaccine hypothesis it is important that we speak up for autism acceptance and challenge the triumphalism in those quarters of the mainstream medical and scientific research community that seek to eliminate diversity.

What do you call a journalist who reports sympathetically on the controversial idea that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism; who chooses to investigate further and changes his mind on the basis of the evidence; who then writes a book on the history of vaccines that is favourably reviewed in the Guardian, New Scientist and the New York Times?

Answer:

A know nothing whore.

Well, that is what Michael Wagnitz thinks of Arthur Allen. Recently, I had cause to comment, when he wrote in similar vein about the authors of a research article that found “no association between autism, Rh negativity and thimerosal exposure during pregnancy.” It seems to me that since Do’C and Not Mercury [here and here]effectively demolished his attempts to defend the science that purports to support the link between thimerosal and autism he has been reduced to personal abuse. Do’C has written a really good response to Wagnitz’s latest bile about Arthur Allen on Autism Street.

I have another question:

What do you call a scientist whose science does not stand up to scrutiny, who then makes unsubstantiated accusations of corruption against fellow scientists while failing to mention his own financial interest in the successful outcome of vaccine damage litigation?

Please post your answers on Autism Street. I understand that Wagnitz is more likely to read them there. And Buy This Book.

EDIT

Michael Wagnitz has threatened Do’C with police action if he does not remove a link to details of Wagnitz’ outstanding vaccine injury claim from his blog. Do’C does not need the grief and has obliged. But, as I do not believe that the jurisdiction of the Madison Police Department extends to the UK, I invite my readers to follow this link and scroll down to the bottom of page 3 to read number 92 in list of claimants for vaccine injury compensation.